Should Fox just focus on R rated Marvel Movies?

[psylockolussus]

Can't you just wait to see storm fry their human enemies to death and Cyclops blow up their enemies' head and while Xavier continue to look for a brighter future where humans and mutants get along.

 

[Ivan Drago]

Can't you just wait to see storm fry their human enemies to death and Cyclops blow up their enemies' head and while Xavier continue to look for a brighter future where humans and mutants get along.

Sounds awesome

 

[Darepool]

Xavier controlling his students to perform sexual acts, full on NC-17

 

[Batmannerism]

I'm already afraid of the R rating.

Deadpool and Logan were not successful because of the rating. They did well because they were good. What Fox should focus on is making each film special, and bringing in talent that have passion for the material they are working with. No more, no less.

Ratings are irrelevent. Deadpool was R rated because the character is raunchy. Logan was R rated because the character kills people with razor sharp claws attached to his fists. Fox should allow the property to determine the rating, just make it good. If they can, sure why not keep the budgets modest to minimize financial risk. They're going to struggle to compete with Marvel on that front anyway (and DC for that matter as they love burning cash).

Highly likely most studios are going to learn the wrong lesson here.

The four words we wish all the studios would apply to their movie making efforts.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

No. Just good ones. X-Men: First Class and X-Men: Days of Future Past are two of the best superhero movies I've seen.

X-Men: Apocalypse seems to have disappointed but it's silly that people would think it means the franchise is dead or they can't do non-R-rated movies when the previous two were amazingly well-received.

 

[Darepool]

X-Porn seems like the natural evolution of the mutant gene.

#schoolforgiftedyoungsters

 

[Darepool]

X-Men: Apocalypse seems to have disappointed but it's silly that people would think it means the franchise is dead or they can't do non-R-rated movies when the previous two were amazingly well-received.

And this women seems to have aged.

 

[Erzengel]

X-Men: Apocalypse seems to have disappointed but it's silly that people would think it means the franchise is dead or they can't do non-R-rated movies when the previous two were amazingly well-received.

But according to Deadline, DOFP only made $77.4M in profit.

Deadline is already doing 2016's movies and I think since they are already on #11, then Apocalypse's profit or lack there of means that it lost money so they won't be in the Top 20.

My point is, if a movie as critically accepted and fan accepted like DOFP can't do well financially, then what chance does the next team movie have? I don't want a X-Men team movie on a budget.

Do the Logan and Deadpool movies as much as you want but maybe the X-Men team movies can't strike a cord with the GA.

 

[Milk Tray Guy]

X-Men: Apocalypse seems to have disappointed but it's silly that people would think it means the franchise is dead or they can't do non-R-rated movies when the previous two were amazingly well-received.

I agree. I found Apocalypse a bit of a letdown tbh but it hasn't caused me to lose faith in the franchise. DoFP was always going to be a tough act to follow.

 

[Roose Bolton]

But according to Deadline, DOFP only made $77.4M in profit.

Deadline is already doing 2016's movies and I think since they are already on #11, then Apocalypse's profit or lack there of means that it lost money so they won't be in the Top 20.

My point is, if a movie as critically accepted and fan accepted like DOFP can't do well financially, then what chance does the next team movie have? I don't want a X-Men team movie on a budget.

Do the Logan and Deadpool movies as much as you want but maybe the X-Men team movies can't strike a cord with the GA.

DOFP made less profit because of the cast and director involved were so damned expensive. It had just about everyone from the original trilogy returning in addition to a good deal of the younger cast, plus newer characters. Having that kind of star power isn't cheap, but it's also not something that these films are going to be doing on a regular basis. You're not going to be getting Jackman, Stewart, McKellen, McAvoy, Fassbender, Lawerance, Berry and Dinklage in one film again.

 

[Ivan Drago]

^

Don't forgot Paquin. She wasn't cheap either. Even though her scenes got cut in the theatrical release she got like third highest billing in the credits.

 

[Erzengel]

DOFP made less profit because of the cast and director involved were so damned expensive. It had just about everyone from the original trilogy returning in addition to a good deal of the younger cast, plus newer characters. Having that kind of star power isn't cheap, but it's also not something that these films are going to be doing on a regular basis. You're not going to be getting Jackman, Stewart, McKellen, McAvoy, Fassbender, Lawerance, Berry and Dinklage in one film again.

The X-Men team movies, should be the tentpole set pieces for Fox. The issue is does the general audience really care about a team X-Men movie (when I say CARE, I mean high tier interest) or is the studio incapable of making a blockbuster X-Men movie. Personally I think it's the former issue.

Regardless of the cast, the studio seems only to be more profitable when it's a low cost X-Men spin off movie.

 

[Roose Bolton]

The X-Men team movies, should be the tentpole set pieces for Fox. The issue is does the general audience really care about a team X-Men movie (when I say CARE, I mean high tier interest) or is the studio incapable of making a blockbuster X-Men movie. Personally I think it's the former issue.

Regardless of the cast, the studio seems only to be more profitable when it's a low cost X-Men spin off movie.

In terms of box office intake Days of Future Past brought in more than the first two Thor and Captain America films, Ant-Man, Dr Strange...the key difference is that it cost more than those films. I think the audience is there and they're hungry for a good X-Men team movie, but that's really the key word-good. If they put out a film as well received by fans and critics as DOFP was, but done with the same kind of frugality that Marvel Studios employs then I think there'd be no issues.

 

[Milk Tray Guy]

You're not going to be getting Jackman, Stewart, McKellen, McAvoy, Fassbender, Lawerance, Berry and Dinklage in one film again.

Sadly!

 

[Erzengel]

In terms of box office intake Days of Future Past brought in more than the first two Thor and Captain America films, Ant-Man, Dr Strange...the key difference is that it cost more than those films. I think the audience is there and they're hungry for a good X-Men team movie, but that's really the key word-good. If they put out a film as well received by fans and critics as DOFP was, but done with the same kind of frugality that Marvel Studios employs then I think there'd be no issues.

Until they actually do that, then I'm not entirely convinced especially since only 2 X-Men movies have grossed over $600M ww and only 1 movie has grossed over $300 domestically.

 

[Roose Bolton]

Until they actually do that, then I'm not entirely convinced especially since only 2 X-Men movies have grossed over $600M ww and only 1 movie has grossed over $300 domestically.

If they can make another unambiguously good mainstream X-men film and it does less than DOFP, then I'd agree. But we haven't got there yet, so I'm more inclined to think it comes down to quality rather than anything else.

 

[Darepool]

What Fox X-film has been as expensive as Avengers, CW or the rumored budget of the next two Avengers films, which would be (ridiculous) the most expensive films in history? Spending on content before actors is the much better approach and one that ensures you can see the money in the overall product on screen and not just the collagen in the actors faces. Apocalypse looked tacky and cheap as ****. Deadpool looked much better on it's budget because the money went to the right places.

 

[DrCosmic]

Not R-Rated, but they should focus on ~60M budgets for solo outings. Own the midrange, and they have the characters to do it. Solos for Gambit, Storm, Dazzler, Psylocke, Cyclops, Cable and solo-ish takes on Exiles and Excalibur could be great fun, and great profit, and lend towards great critical acclaim.

 

[Erzengel]

What Fox X-film has been as expensive as Avengers, CW or the rumored budget of the next two Avengers films, which would be (ridiculous) the most expensive films in history? Spending on content before actors is the much better approach and one that ensures you can see the money in the overall product on screen and not just the collagen in the actors faces. Apocalypse looked tacky and cheap as ****. Deadpool looked much better on it's budget because the money went to the right places.

Days of Future Past was the most expensive at $200M. Apocalypse was $178. All without marketing.

The top grossing MCU films have gone between $200-$250M.

 

[NealKenneth]

Going R-rated is only a good idea if it's appopriate for the main character. Wolverine and Deadpool, as leads, should always be R. But who else does Fox have access to for which R would be appropriate who could also lead a film? Gambit or Magneto?

I don't think Fox has a path forward with the X-Men, because the average person only buys a few tickets a year. If they've got that superhero itch, Disney is going to beat them every single time at this point. This isn't 2005 where only one superhero movie with a blockbuster budget was coming out. Disney is confidenty planning to put out at least three a year for the forseeable future.

Fox's only option is to put out a lower-budget offering where they are at least two months away from having to compete with Disney. That would give them at shot at January/February and the occasional September/October perhaps? Deadpool can fulfill that role until either we or Ryan Reynolds gets bored of him. Wolverine was the other obvious option but that has to be shelved for at least a few years now that Jackman is done.

I could also imagine a Nightcrawler solo film but, like Gambit or Magneto, it's a strech. So, in my opinion, Fox should either strike a deal with Marvel for everyone but Deadpool or forget about the X-Men for now. Instead..if I had to guess, they'll keep pushing ahead with team films until the X-Men brand is damaged beyond their ability to repair, like Sony was with Spider-Man in 2012. They are running out of actors to carry them, or at least actors they can afford.

 

[Roose Bolton]

Of their current line up, they've got Deadpool, X-Force,( possibly) Gambit and a potential X-23 film as R rated offerings and then more traditional PG-13 films like New Mutants and Dark Phoenix coming out. That's a diverse group of films and aside from Dark Phoenix, the majority of those projects can be done for a reasonable price.

 

[NealKenneth]

It is sad to have to write about this actually, because First Class could have been a fantastic soft reboot. Had Fox not padded the cast and runtime with the B-tier student characters (Banshee, Havok, Darwin) it would have been really fantastic!

Unfortunately, as fun as Days of Future Past was, it locked the new cast right into the anchor that is X3 and Origins and even the first two (if only because they haven't aged well.) First Class was a chance to start fresh that is now passed.

 

[Ivan Drago]

DOFP was also a soft reboot. Then they fudged up the goodwill with Crapocalypse.

 

[Frankeh]

DOFP was also a soft reboot. Then they fudged up the goodwill with Crapocalypse.

That's one key problem with the franchise's box office intake. The audience for X-Men movies was definitely growing back in the OT days but the goodwill was gone after TLS and Origins. Now with FC and DOFP and The Wolverine the goodwill had returned, but in came Apocalypse. There needs to be better quality control to mantain their goodwill. The misshaps of TLS and Apocalypse should have been identified from scripting stage.

 

[Darepool]

There is also more options within the genre.